F. Sensenbrenner

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I have a rather lengthy statement on this bill which in the interest of saving time and allowing the Members to leave Washington before the hurricane shuts everything down, I will not read extensively. I will insert it into the Record pursuant to the leave just granted. However, I will say that this bill extends an immigrant visa program for religious workers that is set to expire. The current visa program allows American religious denominations to sponsor and bring in religious workers from overseas for both ministers and non-ministers. The program is highly restricted and many religious denominations have taken advantage of this program in the years past basically to provide additional personnel to do not only their religious work but some of their charitable work as well. It is a program that has not been abused. It is a program that has been found extremely useful and necessary by many of the religious denominations. It is set to expire on September 30. The passage of this bill will extend the authority for this program an additional 5 years. I urge its adoption. Mr. Speaker, the immigrant visa program for religious workers allows American religious denominations to benefit from the assistance of both ministers and non-minister religious workers from overseas. However, the two visa categories authorized under program for non-minister religious workers are set to expire at the end of this fiscal year and must be extended for these benefits to continue. Under the immigrant visa program, an alien (along with spouse and children) can qualify for a special immigrant visa if they are a member of a religious denomination closely associated with a bona fide nonprofit, religious organization in the United States. To be eligible, they must seek to enter the United States to serve either as a minister or in a religious vocation or occupation at the request of the associated organization. Additionally, they are required to have been carrying out such work continuously for at least the preceding two years. The two non-minister religious worker categories were added by the 1990 immigration act. Because of the fear of fraudulent or excessive use of these categories, a maximum of 5,000 visas a year was allowed for the two categories. However, the number has stayed well below the cap as 1,413 religious workers (and 1,714 spouses and children) received these visas in fiscal year 2002. The non-minister religious worker categories were originally set to expire in 1994. After two extensions, the categories now will lapse on October 1st of this year. H.R. 2152, introduced by Representative Barney Frank, would extend the special immigrant visas for religious workers until October 1, 2008. The Judiciary Committee has received a letter signed by organizations representing many religious denominations supporting an extension of these visas. The letter provided a number of examples of how various religious denominations rely on the religious worker visas. For example, ``Catholic dioceses rely heavily upon religious sisters, brothers, and lay missionaries from abroad. . . . Some fill a growing need in the Catholic Church for those called to religious vocations. Others provide critical services to local communities in areas including religious education, and care for vulnerable populations such as elderly, immigrants, refugees, abused and neglected children, adolescents and families at risk.'' In addition, ``Jewish congregations, particularly in remote areas with small Jewish communities, rely on rabbis, cantors, kosher butchers, Hebrew school teachers, and other religious workers who come from abroad through the religious worker program. Without them, many Jewish communities would be unable to sustain the institutions and practices that are essential to Jewish religious and communal life.'' And, ``[o]ther religious denominations, such as the Baptist Church, the Church of Christ Scientist, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, the Lutheran Church, and the Seventh Day Adventist Church, also rely on the visas to bring in non-minister religious workers, who . . . work in areas as diverse as teaching in church schools, producing religious publications, sustaining prison ministries, training health care professionals to provide religiously appropriate health care, and performing other work related to a traditional religious function.'' These visas serve a valuable role and contribute to Americas' vibrant religious life. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 2152, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 292.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture. (Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from New Hampshire, the States have been on notice for 5 years that national policy disfavors taxing access to the Internet. While it is true that the grandfather clause is repealed by this bill, in the State of New Hampshire in 2002 $2\1/2\ million was collected through Internet access taxes. That is 13/100ths of 1 percent of the total revenues of the State of New Hampshire. Obviously, getting rid of this multiple and discriminatory and regressive tax is something that should be a national policy. I think the Internet is interstate commerce, not intrastate commerce. And, thus, I believe that the bill ought to be approved.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the support of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Delahunt) on this bill. Lest people only heard part of his statement, let me say very clearly that this legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of the assessment and collection of sales taxes on remote sellers. It only has to do with banning multiple and discriminatory taxes on Internet access. The sales tax issue will be dealt with another day and in the context of another bill. Since the gentleman from Massachusetts has raised this, I would like to make the following observations: First, most States that assess sales taxes also assess use taxes, so an in-state resident who purchases goods out of state and is exempt from the sales tax because the goods are shipped from one State to the other, the sales tax of the State where the seller is located, is still liable for a use tax in his or her State of residency. There is a line on the Wisconsin State income tax form that asks how much in use taxes you have to pay to the State of Wisconsin. If you put down zero and you really owe taxes, you filed a false tax return. I am sure that is the case in practically every other State that has got a sales or a use tax. So when we are dealing with this issue, we are dealing with the failure of States to adequately and efficiently enforce their own use tax law. I do not know why States have failed to do this. That is something that Governors and legislators and State taxation department officials ought to explain. But I can see the two-step being put on the Congress, that if we pass what the gentleman from Massachusetts wants us to at a later date, then that becomes our sales tax increase of billions of dollars on the taxpayers of Massachusetts and Texas and North Carolina. I have told my Governors, Republican and Democrat, that have talked to me about this, as I said, your laws are already on the books. Why do you want us to enforce your law through an act of Congress, when you have the means to enforce your law by yourselves as responsibilities of the State government? I hope that when we debate this issue of how to tax remote sales, we do not forget that. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith).

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the author of the bill.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon), the chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 49, the Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act. Over the last several years, the Internet has revolutionized commerce, become an economic engine and is a major source of information for Americans in virtually every segment of the population. It has expanded consumer choices, enhanced competition and enabled individuals as well as brick and mortar retailers to participate in a national marketplace once reserved to a privileged few. In 1998, Congress passed the Internet Tax Freedom Act to facilitate the commercial development of the Internet, and in 2001 this body voted to extend the moratorium through this year. This act prohibits States from imposing multiple and discriminatory taxes on electronic commerce and shields consumers from new Internet access taxes. However, it does not exempt Internet retailers from collecting and remitting sales taxes to the States. Introduced by the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), H.R. 49 makes permanent the ban on taxes that target the Internet for discriminatory treatment as well as all taxes on Internet access by States and localities. This sound policy reflects the experience and insights gained over the last 5 years and represents the position of a wide bipartisan cosponsorship. The Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law conducted a hearing on this bill in April. On July 16, the full Judiciary Committee reported the bill favorably by voice vote with one bipartisan amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the subcommittee's ranking member, the gentleman from North Carolina, and its chairman, the gentleman from Utah. This amendment ensures that the original intent of the law, to provide tax freedom for all forms of Internet access, is preserved. I commend the gentleman from Utah and the gentleman from North Carolina for their work to clarify in this amendment that tax freedom must be tech neutral. If H.R. 49 is not passed, Internet commerce will be subject to State and local taxes in thousands of jurisdictions. Failure to make the moratorium permanent could result in the imposition of a complex web of taxes that would create uncertainty for the information technology industry, a sector of the economy which can ill afford further setbacks. Further, we must encourage equal participation in the digital age by keeping Internet access as affordable as possible. A recent survey confirmed that poorer Americans and those in rural or urban areas are most likely to cite cost pressures as a major reason why they would not avail themselves of the resources found online. Taxes on Internet access would only deepen the digital divide between those who have access to the Internet and those who do not. This bill has had virtually unanimous support in the Committee on the Judiciary and it has more than 130 bipartisan cosponsors. It is supported by the administration and has garnered the endorsement of numerous IT businesses and organizations. Last Congress, the House and Senate passed a temporary extension of the moratorium by voice vote. These limited protections expire November 1 of this year. It is now time to make the benefits created by the moratorium permanent. Doing so will vitalize the IT economy, assist consumers and stimulate equal access to the invaluable resource that is the Internet. I urge my colleagues to support this bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 49, the bill currently under consideration.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. This bill is about changing attitudes in America's prisons and in America as a whole. In our country, prison rape occurs frequently, but unfortunately it is often viewed as a fact of prison life. We know these crimes are occurring, but most people would really rather not discuss this unpleasant topic. Unpleasant as it may be, prison rape is a serious problem that harms prisoners and also effects our communities. This problem is brought to bear on our communities through higher health costs for increased HIV and tuberculosis in prisons. It is brought to bear on our communities by the emotional and psychological problems it creates in the prisoners who will one day be released back into society. This Congress has decided enough is enough. It is time for us to stop ignoring this problem. S. 1435 as offered on the floor today represents a bipartisan effort to address this problem in a meaningful way and bring some accountability into America's prisons and jails. It is intended to make prevention and prosecution of sexual assault within correctional facilities a priority for Federal, State and local institutions and require the development of national standards for detection, prevention, reduction, and punishment of these incidents. S. 1435 will help to eliminate prison rape in a number of ways. First, this legislation will require the Department of Justice, for the first time, to collect data and statistics on the incidence of prison rape. For the first time we will be collecting information on an annual basis to determine the extent of this problem. This is the first step in our effort to address this problem. Additionally, the legislation requires the Attorney General to develop national standards on the prevention and prosecution of prison rape. A state that receives Federal funds for prisons and jails will need to comply with these national standards or shift 5 percent of its funds from the Federal Government for its prisons to comply with the standards. Finally, this legislation will establish a new grant program for the Attorney General to make one year grants to State and local governments to prevent, investigate, and punish prison rape or to help in addressing prisoner and community safety issues in states facing budget crises. Before closing, I would note that this legislation is substantively identical to H.R. 1707, introduced by Congressman Wolf, and reported by the Judiciary Committee earlier this month. I believe this legislation will go a long way towards eliminating this very serious safety issue in our prisons and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 1435) to provide for the analysis of the incidence and effects of prison rape in Federal, State, and local institutions and to provide information, resources, recommendations, and funding to protect individuals from prison rape, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the Senate bill S. 1435.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise to claim the time for the Committee on the Judiciary.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.-Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain several important provisions within the purview of the Committee on the Judiciary. Both agreements contain competition clauses that ensure antitrust laws are applied in a neutral, transparent and nondiscriminatory manner while safeguarding basic procedural rights. The agreements also contain robust intellectual property protections, requiring the governments of Chile and Singapore to take affirmative steps to eradicate the piracy of trademarks, patents, satellite television rights and other forms of intellectual property. These intellectual property provisions are widely supported and are likely to serve as a model for future free trade agreements. The intellectual property and antitrust provisions required no substantive changes to U.S. law and thus are not within the text of the implementing legislation before the House today. For the last several years, I have woefully and repeatedly expressed concern about substantive changes to U.S. law contained in free trade agreements. Before passage of the Trade Promotion Authority Act, immigration provisions were included in earlier free trade agreements such as NAFTA without formal consultation with Congress. This regrettable practice created precedent for subsequent trade agreements, and immigration provisions were included in both the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements before the elevated consultation requirements created by the Trade Promotion Authority were enacted last year. Mr. Speaker, article I, section 8, clause 3 of the Constitution gives the Congress plenary authority over matters pertaining to immigration and naturalization. During the Committee on the Judiciary's mock markup of this legislation, I, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member and several members of the committee spoke with a united and bipartisan voice and declared that immigration provisions in future free trade agreements will not receive the support of the Committee on the Judiciary. Plainly stated, the Committee on the Judiciary will oppose any future free trade agreement that contains substantive changes in immigration law. Following the markup, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member, and I transmitted a letter to the United States Trade Representative that reaffirmed Congress' exclusive constitutional mandate to consider immigration law. An additional letter was sent by other members of the committee and several Members of the Congress not on the committee echoing this bipartisan commitment. This was sent to the Trade Representative. Mr. Speaker, the Committee on the Judiciary's July 10 preintroduction markup of this legislation was a mock markup in name only. At the markup, the committee reported several substantive amendments to the draft we were furnished, and these were incorporated into the legislation which we consider today. First, while the draft implementing legislation created a separate visa category for skilled workers from Chile and Singapore, the Committee on the Judiciary amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure that these visas, 6,800 in total, are now deducted from the national H-1B visa cap at the time they are issued and when they are renewed after five or more prior extensions. The committee also reported an amendment to ensure that every second extension of temporary status for citizens of Chile and Singapore be accompanied by a new employer attestation to ensure that an employer updates the prevailing wage determination after each second application for extension. In addition, the committee approved an amendment that requires an employer to pay a fee equal to that charged to an employer petitioning for H-1B visa status whenever a temporary exit visa is granted and after every second extension of that status. Finally, H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739 now explicitly state that an employer generally cannot sponsor an alien for an EL or H-1B1 visa if there is any labor dispute occurring in the occupational classification at the place of employment, regardless of whether the labor dispute is classified as a strike or a lockout. In this regard, title IV of both bills provides greater worker protection than that presently contained in the H-1B program. The committee's commitment to ensuring that its amendments were incorporated into the introduced bills we consider today dramatically enhanced the quality of the legislation and recaptured a crucial prerogative of the Congress. It is my hope and expectation that the Committee on the Judiciary's clarion call over the last 2 weeks that immigration provisions be excluded from future trade agreements will be clearly received by this and future administrations. Given the leadership of Ambassador Zoellick, his proven commitment to working with Congress on a cooperative and constructive basis that fully respects the constitutional prerogatives of this body and the dedication and professionalism of his staff, I have great confidence that the will of Congress will not be ignored. Mr. Speaker, reducing barriers to U.S. exports is crucial to restoring America's economic vibrancy. U.S. products containing intellectual property continue to lead America's exports, and it is incumbent upon this body to ensure that foreign governments stamp out the rampant piracy that costs America and Americans several billion dollars a year. Strong safeguards in these agreements will ensure that the governments of Chile and Singapore create criminal sanctions to punish intellectual property theft with the seriousness and severity that it demands. In addition, the antitrust provisions will ensure that these governments do not rely on the increasingly common foreign practice of manipulating antitrust laws to discriminate against American businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Chilean-Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain critical market-opening provisions which will expand commercial opportunities for America's farmers and dairy producers and ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in exports. These agreements also advance America's broader strategic interests by liberalizing trade with two key economic allies which serve as regional models for neighboring countries. For the reasons I have outlined, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon) and that he be allowed to yield time to other Members.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, both the U.S.-Chile and U.S.- Singapore Free Trade Agreements include several important provisions within the purview of the Judiciary Committee. Both agreements contain competition clauses that ensure antitrust laws are applied in a neutral, transparent, nondiscriminatory manner while safeguarding basic procedural rights. The agreements also contain robust intellectual property protections, requiring the governments of Chile and Singapore to take affirmative steps to eradicate the piracy of trademarks, patents, satellite television signals, and other forms of intellectual property. These intellectual property provisions are widely supported and are likely to serve as a model for future Free Trade Agreements. The intellectual property and antitrust provisions required no substantive changes to U.S. law. For the last several years, I have vocally and repeatedly expressed concern about substantive changes to U.S. law contained in free trade agreements. Before passage of Trade Promotion Authority, immigration provisions were included in earlier free trade agreements such as NAFTA, without formal consultation with Congress. This regrettable practice created precedent for subsequent trade agreements, and immigration provisions were included in both the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements before the elevated consultation requirements created by Trade Promotion Authority were enacted last year. Mr. Speaker, Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the Constitution gives Congress plenary authority over matters pertaining to immigration and naturalization. During the Judiciary Committee's ``mock markup'' of this legislation, I, Ranking Member Conyers, and several Members of the Committee spoke with a united bipartisan voice and declared that immigration provisions in future free trade agreements will not receive the support of the Judiciary Committee. Following the markup, I and Ranking Member Conyers transmitted a letter to the United States Trade Representative that reaffirmed Congress' exclusive constitutional mandate to consider immigration law. An additional letter by other Members of the Committee and several Members of Congress echoing this bipartisan commitment was also sent to the Trade Representative. Mr. Speaker, the Judiciary Committee's July 10th pre-introduction markup of this legislation was a ``mock markup'' in name only. At the markup, the Committee reported several substantive amendments to this legislation which were incorporated into the legislation we consider today. First, while the draft implementing legislation created a separate visa category for skilled workers from Chile and Singapore, the Judiciary Committee amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to ensure that these visas--6,800 in total--are now deducted from the national H-1B cap at the time they are issued and when they are renewed after five or more prior extensions. The Committee also reported an amendment to ensure that every second extension of temporary status for citizens of Chile and Singapore be accompanied by a new employer attestation to ensure that an employer updates the prevailing wage determination after each second application for extension. In addition, the Committee approved an amendment that requires an employer to pay a fee equal to that charged to an employer petitioning for H-1B visa status whenever a temporary entry visa is granted and after every second extension of that status. Finally, H.R. 2738 and H.R. 2739 now explicitly state that an employer generally cannot sponsor an alien for an E, L, or H-1B1 visa if there is any labor dispute occurring in the occupational classification at the place of employment, regardless of whether the labor dispute is classified as a strike or lockout. In this regard, Title IV of both bills provides greater worker protection than that presently contained in the H-1B program. The Committee's commitment to ensuring that its amendments were incorporated into the introduced bills we consider today dramatically enhanced the quality of the legislation and recaptured a crucial prerogative of Congress. It is my hope and expectation that the Judiciary Committee's clarion call over the last two weeks that immigration provisions be excluded from future trade agreements will be clearly received by this--and future--Administrations. Given the leadership of Ambassador Zoellick, his proven commitment to working with Congress on a cooperative and constructive basis that fully respects the constitutional prerogatives of this body, and the dedication and professionalism of his staff, I have great confidence that the will of Congress will not be ignored. Mr. Speaker, reducing barriers to U.S. exports is crucial to restoring America's economic vibrancy. U.S. products containing intellectual property continue to lead America's exports, and it is incumbent upon this body to ensure that foreign governments stamp out the rampant piracy that costs America several billion dollars a year. Strong safeguards in these agreements will ensure that the governments of Chile and Singapore create criminal sanctions to punish intellectual property theft with the seriousiness and severity that it demands. In addition, the antitrust provisions will ensure that these governments do not rely on the increasingly common foreign practice of manipulating antitrust laws to discriminate against United States businesses. Mr. Speaker, the Chile and Singapore Free Trade Agreements contain critical market-opening provisions which will expand commercial opportunities for America's farmers and dairy producers, and ensure that the United States continues to lead the world in exports. These agreements also advance America's broader strategic interests by liberalizing trade with two key economic allies which serve as regional models for neighboring countries. For the reasons I've outlined, I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I introduced H.R. 1437 on March 25, 2003, along with the ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers). The Office of Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives has prepared this bill and submitted it to the Committee on the Judiciary under Section 285(b) of Title 2, United States Code. Pursuant to Rule X of the House of Representatives, the Committee on the Judiciary maintains jurisdiction over the revision codification of statutes of the United States. Last year, the House passed by voice vote H.R. 2068 which codified, without substantive change, certain general and permanent laws relating to Public Buildings, Property, and Works of Title 40 of the United States Code. After Senate passage, H.R. 2068 was signed into law as Public Law 107-217 on August 21, 2002. H.R. 1437 makes necessary technical and conforming changes to Public Law 107-217 and Title 40 of the United States Code, and it does not change the substance of the existing law. I am not aware of any controversy with respect to this bill, and I would encourage all Members to support it. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1437.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, when the House passed S. 151, the PROTECT Act, which was signed into law by President Bush on April 30, 2003, we directed the Attorney General to establish a pilot program to perform background checks on individuals that volunteered to work with children. The pilot project, among other things, requires the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to act as a liaison between several volunteer organizations that work with children in the FBI. Under the pilot project, the Center will receive from the FBI background check information on individuals seeking to volunteer with children and make a determination as to the suitability of those individuals for volunteer organizations. This legislation seeks to correct an oversight in that pilot project, which is scheduled to begin next week, a week from tomorrow on July 29, 2003. This legislation clarifies the Center's liability in connection with the pilot program in three specific situations and protects the Center from lawsuits in any one of three different situations except in cases where there is intentional misconduct or actions taken with actual malice. First, the bill stipulates that the Center shall not be held liable for any act or communication that results in a decision that an individual is unfit to serve as a volunteer for any volunteer organization. The purpose of this program is to keep individuals who are potentially dangerous away from our children, and it needs to be clear that the Center will not be sued as a result of making this determination. Second, this legislation also addresses the unfortunate situation where an individual with a criminal history may be cleared by the Center due to inaccurate or incomplete records and subsequently commits a crime in their capacity as a volunteer. The hope is that this program will be 100 percent successful in keeping criminals away from our children. However, we must also acknowledge that the effectiveness of these background checks are predicated on the accuracy and completeness of the records the FBI relies upon. Unless the Center willfully ignores information indicating that an individual might be a potential danger, they should not be responsible for subsequent crimes committed by that individual. The third and final section of this bill addresses the situation where a decision is made to clear an individual based on the absence of criminal history information. In this case, were the individual to subsequently commit a crime, the Center would be protected unless they knew that criminal history records existed and have not been furnished. I urge my colleagues to expeditiously vote in favor of this legislation to ensure the smooth operation of this pilot project and the protection of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and would point out that unless this bill is enacted into law by a week from Tuesday, the pilot project will be delayed. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on S. 1280.

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 1280) to amend the PROTECT Act to clarify certain volunteer liability.